We are never going to reach full certainty on these matters unless some totally unexpected evidence suddenly surfaces. We are therefore left to judge things the way you wisely do - they are more or less likely.

And just like you say, it would be unlikely with two serialists in the same town.
It would be even more unlikely if they were both eviscerators.
It would be even MORE unlikely if neither of them were sadists, but instead killed swiftly to gain access to a body.

Once we reach this stage, we may need to reason the way you do - it could have been a copycat. But it could not have been somebody emulating Jacks deeds - for the torso killer started out BEFORE Jack. So if anything, Jack would be the one emulating the torso killers deeds!

The thing is, though, it seems the torso killer was first to cut from ribcage to pubes, like he did in the Rainham case of 1887, well before Jack made his entrance. Then Jack copied him in august of 1888, by ripping Nichols from ribcage to pubes.

So Jack is the imitator, right?

But then Jack cuts away the abdomen in large flaps from Chapman and Kelly in September and November of 1888 - and suddenly the Torso killer imitates Jack by doing the same thing to Liz Jackson in 1889. The copycatted killer copycats the copycat, right?

As you may realize, by this stage I think we have reached the stage "utterly, ridiculously and extremely unlikely" that we are dealing with two killers. The only reasonable deduction - at least in my book - is that we have one killer only. I hope you can see the ground for my total misgivings about any other solutions.

Does anybody know if there is any recorded instance of two eviscerating serial killers in the same town at the same time? Has that ever happened in the annals of history?

Apart from in London 1888, I mean?

Hi Fisherman

I was referring to the 5 canonical victims when referring to the possibility that one or more may have been the work of a copycat - though I think it unlikely.

With regards to the torso victims, they started before and ended after the jack the ripper murders. For it to have been the same person, they would have to be working with two different methods at the same time, albeit you might find some cross-over in method. Not impossible, but we would need a compelling argument to explain why this might be the case.

Unfortunately, there are a number of instances where two or more serial killers were active at the same time in the same city and where you find some coincidental cross-over in method - although none of the examples of multiple serial killers operating at the same time that I am aware of included eviscerating victims.

That is not say that one murderer was not influenced by the other in 1888 (if two separate murderers are at play). I remember an article about two serial killers in Phoenix who appeared to be feeding off each other:Police believe there is no link between the two murderers, who have been branded the "Baseline Killer" and the "Serial Shooter", though some criminal profilers claim that they might be feeding off each other's notoriety.
(full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1524...notoriety.html )

Not in the least. Millions of butchers/slaughtermen throughout history, to say nothing of a handful of murderers - serial or otherwise - perform similar cuts, albeit most of them do it far more neatly than we see in the case of Nichols, Chapman, Kelly or even Kate "zig-zag" Eddowes. There are only so many ways to cut open an abdomen.

Pizzas are often sliced in eight segments, but it would be sheer folly to suggest that every eight-slice pizza in town had been processed by the same person.

... and there goes the thread.

If you wish to move the thread, by all means do so.

Yes, scores of butchers cut (and have cut) from ribcage to genitalia.

How many killers have done it to women?

The discussion should revolve around that. The simple reason is that while butchering animals is an everyday business that is very common, it is extremely uncommon for a person to kill another person and cut that persons abdomen from ribcage to pubes.

When researching this case, it is an assett that is invaluable - we know that we are dealing with a very odd behaviour, something that does not surface often in the annals of crime.

Very few people murder other people. Very, very, very few people cut open the abdomen of other people in combination with murder. Even fewer cut all the way from ribcage to pubes - we are talking about a behavior rarer than hen´s teeth.

I cannot see why we would speak about butchers when addressing this case. Hunters shoot their prey and then they use shackles and chains to hoist the prey up in a hanging position so that they can empty the abdominal cavitity of viscera. It is not strange in any way.

But when Ed Gein did the same thing to Beatrice Warden, hoisting her up with chains and shackles and emptied her abdominal cavity, I would reason that this is something distinctly different to a hunters handling his prey. The reason being that Gein killed and eviscerated a woman.

Oddly, the legal system seems to have taken up on my objections - the fewest hunters are handed down a life sentence for cleaning out a deer, whereas Gein seems to have been looked upon differently.

Exactly what are yu hoping to achieve by dragging in butchers and hunters into the discussion of serial murder and eviscerations? Do you regard butchers as murderers? Would you have hunters sent to the electric chair? If not, what is your point?

The discussion should revolve around that. The simple reason is that while butchering animals is an everyday business that is very common, it is extremely uncommon for a person to kill another person and cut that persons abdomen from ribcage to pubes.

When researching this case, it is an assett that is invaluable - we know that we are dealing with a very odd behaviour, something that does not surface often in the annals of crime.

Very few people murder other people. Very, very, very few people cut open the abdomen of other people in combination with murder. Even fewer cut all the way from ribcage to pubes - we are talking about a behavior rarer than hen´s teeth.

I cannot see why we would speak about butchers when addressing this case. Hunters shoot their prey and then they use shackles and chains to hoist the prey up in a hanging position so that they can empty the abdominal cavitity of viscera. It is not strange in any way.

But when Ed Gein did the same thing to Beatrice Warden, hoisting her up with chains and shackles and emptied her abdominal cavity, I would reason that this is something distinctly different to a hunters handling his prey. The reason being that Gein killed and eviscerated a woman.

Oddly, the legal system seems to have taken up on my objections - the fewest hunters are handed down a life sentence for cleaning out a deer, whereas Gein seems to have been looked upon differently.

Exactly what are yu hoping to achieve by dragging in butchers and hunters into the discussion of serial murder and eviscerations? Do you regard butchers as murderers? Would you have hunters sent to the electric chair? If not, what is your point?

Well, quite apart from vastly different signatures and MOs there were substantial differences in the injuries suffered by the C5 victims in contrast to the Torso victims. And if you think that dismemberment murderers don't inflict abdominal injuries then think again.

But methinks this argument needs to be transferred to a more suitable thread.

By the way, I still have no idea why you continue to include the earlier dismemberment cases-apart from Old Lechmere, of course!

Regardless of the thread, you just can't resist bringing up one or more aspect of your theories, no matter how off-topic. I knew this would happen as soon as Lechmere got a name-check.

Quote:

Exactly what are yu hoping to achieve by dragging in butchers and hunters into the discussion of serial murder and eviscerations? Do you regard butchers as murderers? Would you have hunters sent to the electric chair? If not, what is your point?

The point, which I've already made, is that there is only a limited number of ways one can cut open an abdomen. To read any significance into the Torso murderer's victim having had her abdomen cut open from breastbone to pubis is about as valid as it is to suggest that every pizza triangle in town was probably cut by the same person.

Regardless of the thread, you just can't resist bringing up one or more aspect of your theories, no matter how off-topic. I knew this would happen as soon as Lechmere got a name-check.The point, which I've already made, is that there is only a limited number of ways one can cut open an abdomen. To read any significance into the Torso murderer's victim having had her abdomen cut open from breastbone to pubis is about as valid as it is to suggest that every pizza triangle in town was probably cut by the same person.

Now that the Torso killer has been brought up, what does that do to your former thoughts?
Do you stand by them, saying that two evisceration killers at the same time in the same place is not to be expected?
Or do you say that of course there can be eviscerators co-existing in the same town at the same time?

If you go for the latter option, then it must be pointed out that Jack and the Torso killer both:

-cut abdomens from ribcage to pubes

-took out organs of a sexual and non-sexual character

-preyed on prositutes, perhaps in all cases

-took rings from the fingers of their victims

-cut out parts of the colon on some victims

-seemed more interested in post-mortem mutilation than in killing
abstained from torture as far as we can tell - they were not sadists, they aquired bodies to cut into

-cut away the abdominal walls in panes from their victims in some cases

-were mistaken for people with surgical experience at some stage, apparently owing to how skilled they were with the knife

You need to read that book, Herlock! Which is it, by the way? Both Mei and Gordon make a number of mistakes.

Kelly was thought to be a personal deed on account of the combination of the overkill and the facial damage. It is a wise reflection to make, normally. But it does not apply here, if I am correct.

So there has to be an alternative reason for the overkill and face-cutting. And yes, as a I have hinted at many times, such a reason can be identified. Moreover, that reason is very clearly present in the torso murders too, sometimes less obvious, other times VERY obvious. The 1873 torso case is by far the clearest exponent, and the most obvious parallel to the Kelly murder in this respect. So if the killer is the same, we may reasonably forget about Barnett - he was 15 in 1873.

Like you say, I am convinced that Lechmere was Jack. But I am even more convinced that Jack was the Torso killer. It is an inevitable conclusion, going on the forensic evidence. So it´s no surprise to me when the Pinchin Street torso is found on the doorstep of Lechmeres childhood address in the same street.

It's the Trow book that I have Fish. It's one of a great number of books that I have on my 'to re-read list.'

Sam Flynn: Regardless of the thread, you just can't resist bringing up one or more aspect of your theories, no matter how off-topic. I knew this would happen as soon as Lechmere got a name-check.

Well, Gareth, it seems you cannot resist discussing what YOU want to discuss, so I cannot see why my interests and/or theory would be inferior in this respect. Maybe you can explain that? It seems you are on a crusade to stop any disussion of Lechmere and the Torso murderer, and I think that is odd. The possible connection promises to possibly provide the greatest breakthrough in the Ripper research ever, and I for one find that interesting. Move the material to another thread if you wish, but please respect that you cannot be the judge of what others ought or ought not discuss on public boards.

The point, which I've already made, is that there is only a limited number of ways one can cut open an abdomen. To read any significance into the Torso murderer's victim having had her abdomen cut open from breastbone to pubis is about as valid as it is to suggest that every pizza triangle in town was probably cut by the same person.

No, it is not. Pizzas are cut in millions, while abdomens are cut open in murder cases on very, very rare occasions. And when it happens, the cuts vary (as opposed to the pizza cuts) from small cuts (like MacKenzie, like Ellen Bury) to large gashes stretching all the way. Pizza slices can only be cut one way. Abdomens can be cut in many ways.

It also applies that BOTH these murder series display examples of where the abdominal wall was taken away, by removing it in large panes. I don´t know if you regard this as just another choice of murderous pizza topping, but if you DO, I´d advice you to think again. It is something that is extremely rare in murder cases, and as I have pointed out, I have managed to find one (1) parallel example. In that case, it was a cannibal who cut a whole body up n small pieces and laid it out to dry in the sun.

Making comparisons between evisceration murders and pizza eating/deer hunting is somewhat odd. Please respect that we are dealing with murderers of a very, very rare kind here.

It's the Trow book that I have Fish. It's one of a great number of books that I have on my 'to re-read list.'

Okay! Then be adviced that it involves a number of errors. I´d be happy to help out with it, if you wish. Alternatively, you may look up Debra Arifs posts on the issue, and you will be better off than if only reading Trow. For example, he has a chapter of about a girl with a rose tattoo (that was never there) and his sketch of how the Rainham victim was divided into pieces misses out on a vital cut. Just to mention a few things.

The book has it´s good sides, but needs a lot of help in some sections.